Fei Yu v Lei Wang t/as H&B Security [2020] QCATA 143

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Fei Yu v Lei Wang t/as H&B Security [2020] QCATA 143 PARTIES: FEI YU (appellant) v LEI WANG T/AS H&B SECURITY (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL103-19 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO 621/18 (Brisbane) MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 26 May 2020 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Gordon ORDERS: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal fails. 2. The application by Fei Yu for a stay of the decision made in MCDO 621/18 (Brisbane) on 10 April 2019 is refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where the appellant offered various reasons as to why the decision of an Adjudicator was incorrect – where none of the reasons could be a sufficiently arguable point on appeal – whether leave to appeal should be given REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from a decision of an Adjudicator in the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction. [2] Lei Wang trading as H&B Security claimed $6,155.50 plus the filing fee from Fei Yu. The claim was for payment for the supply and installation of security equipment and other work done by Mr Wang at Mr Yu’s gymnasium premises. [3] In the formal written response to the claim, Mr Yu said that the claim was excessive and Mr Wang was only entitled to $2,905. [4] The matter was first heard in the tribunal on 30 November 2018 but Mr Yu was not present at the hearing. The proceeding was reopened and was reheard on 10 April 2019 by an Adjudicator. [5] The Appeal Tribunal has obtained a transcript of the hearing on 10 April 2019. The Adjudicator read the written material submitted by both parties, received their evidence on oath, and heard their submissions. The Adjudicator decided that the claim was largely proved and ordered Mr Yu to pay to Mr Wang the sum of $5,822. [6] Mr Yu now appeals against that order. He says that the decision was incorrect. The points made in the application for leave to appeal or appeal however, are the same as those made in the formal written response to the claim and which were before the Adjudicator who heard the matter. The difficulty is that an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal does not give a party a second opportunity to win a case which they have previously lost. Generally it is necessary to show that the decision maker was in error on the information available at the original hearing. [7] Appeal Tribunal directions required Mr Yu to state what error was made by the Adjudicator. In response to this direction, Mr Yu filed submissions on 9 July 2019. Those submissions largely repeated Mr Yu’s case which was unsuccessful before the Adjudicator and so they cannot form the basis of an appeal. However, there are two points made in the submissions which are capable of being the basis of an appeal. [8] Firstly, Mr Yu says that the decision was hasty and that he was not given enough time at the hearing. Secondly he says that the Adjudicator ignored his case that there was equipment installed which did not have his prior approval, some equipment was on the invoice and not installed, and there was equipment supplied which was not supported by invoices showing their purchase. In making these points Mr Yu is saying that he did not have a fair hearing. This is something that can be the basis of an appeal because all those who come to the tribunal are entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to present their case, they are entitled to have their case understood, and they are entitled to have it determined fairly. Not to do so is an error of law. [9] Therefore I now consider those points of appeal. It is clear from the transcript that the Adjudicator had read the written material submitted by the parties beforehand. The hearing lasted an hour and covered a lot of ground. During the hearing Mr Yu -- 2 of 3 -- 3 addressed the Adjudicator at length and in detail,1 so that the Adjudicator was well aware of his defence to Mr Wang’s claim. Just before reaching the decision in the matter the Adjudicator asked both parties if they wished to add anything else, and again Mr Yu addressed the tribunal at length.2 It is also clear from the transcript that the decision was not made hastily. The Adjudicator had sufficient time to reach a reasoned view and indeed gave detailed reasons why Mr Wang’s case was preferred. [10] Mr Yu is incorrect to say that particular issues were ignored by the Adjudicator. It is clear from the transcript that the Adjudicator knew and understood Mr Yu’s case that there was equipment installed which did not have his prior approval,3 some equipment was on the invoice and not installed,4 and there was equipment supplied which was not supported by invoices showing their purchase.5 In the reasons, the Adjudicator dealt with all these issues very succinctly by finding that it was up to Mr Wang to supply and install the equipment needed for the job and that is what he had done.6 This meant that there was no need to provide purchase invoices. It also meant, as the Adjudicator expressly found, that Mr Wang had not installed unnecessary equipment and had only installed equipment which was necessary for the job. [11] There is nothing to show therefore that Mr Yu did not have an opportunity to present his case, or that it was misunderstood or ignored, or that the dispute was not determined fairly. Conclusion in the appeal [12] In matters such as this, leave to appeal can only be given if there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal. In this appeal there is no reasonably arguable ground of appeal and so leave to appeal should not be given. This means that the appeal fails. For the same reason the application by Mr Yu for a stay of the order made by the Adjudicator also fails. 1 In particular, transcript 1-4, 1-6, 1-10, 1-13 to 1-16. 2 Transcript 1-18 to 1-20. 3 Transcript 1-4 line 8. 4 Transcript 1-7 line 27 to 1-8 line 22. 5 Transcript 1-18 lines 34 to 43. 6 Reasons at transcript 1-21 line 12. -- 3 of 3 --